4.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Prievidza.
5.  On 14 September 1995 the applicant brought an action against her former husband in the Trnava District Court (Okresný súd) seeking the division and distribution of their matrimonial property. She submitted that following their divorce in 1993 the defendant had taken possession of all their property and that she had been forced to leave their household and was living in a sub-leased flat.
6.  Between 1996 and 2002 the District Court held 7 hearings. The action was assigned, in turn, to 4 different judges.
7.  On 30 October 2002 the District Court appointed an expert to draw up a report on the property to be divided.
8.  On 20 December 2002 the applicant raised objections as to the expert’s qualifications. The District Court dismissed them and ruled on the expert’s fees on 5 and 17 February 2003, respectively. The decision of 5 February 2003 was upheld on the applicant’s appeal on 31 July 2003.
9.  On 4 January 2004 the District Court sent a reminder to the expert who finally filed the report on 14 January 2004. The applicant subsequently filed her comments and objected that not all items in the matrimonial regime had been included in the expert’s report. On 26 April 2004 the District Court asked the applicant to complete her comments and the defendant and the expert responded to them on 12 and 13 May 2004, respectively.
10.  On 19 August 2004 the District Court again ruled on the expert’s fees. In this period it also took steps with a view to establishing the applicant’s material situation.
11.  On 25 November 2004 the applicant informed the District Court that the defendant had died on 29 October 2004 in a traffic accident.
12.  On 10 January 2005 the District Court held a hearing which was adjourned in order to obtain information about the proceedings on the settlement of the defendant’s estate.
13.  On 24 January 2005 the notary who was conducting the inheritance proceedings as an official of the court informed the District Court of the state of the inheritance proceedings.
14.  On 1 April 2005 the District Court stayed the proceedings in the applicant’s action pending the outcome of the inheritance proceedings.
15.  On 26 August 2005 the notary issued an inheritance decree (osvedčenie o dedičstve) dividing and distributing the estate among the late defendant’s three children. It became final on the same day.
16.  On 8 December 2005 the District Court requested the defendant’s heirs to submit their observations in reply to the action. On 15 February 2006 the District Court ordered that the request be served on two of the heirs by the police. The requests were returned on 10 March 2006 as undeliverable.
17.  In April and July 2006 the District Court made inquiries with a view to establishing the address of the two heirs and ensuring the service of court correspondence on them.
18.  In May and September 2006, respectively, the District Court appointed official representatives (opatrovník) to act on behalf of the missing heirs and to receive official correspondence in the proceedings.
19.  On 9 October 2006 the District Court held a hearing at which the applicant submitted that the defendants to the action were her late husband’s three children and two siblings with whom she had no contact.
20.  In October and November 2006 and April 2007 the District Court made further inquiries with a view to establishing the addresses of some of the defendants. In January 2007 it appointed an official representative to act on behalf of one of them.
21.  The proceedings are still pending.
22.  On 18 February 2002 the applicant lodged a complaint under Article 127 of the Constitution with the Constitutional Court (Ústavný súd) in respect of the length of the proceedings in her action.
23.  On 28 October 2002 the applicant provided further and better particulars of her complaint through a lawyer who had been officially appointed for her. She claimed 90,000 Slovakian korunas[1] (SKK) in just satisfaction for non pecuniary damage.
24.  In his observations in reply to the complaint, the President of the District Court submitted, inter alia, that the essential problem in relation to the processing of cases in general was the insufficient number of judges.
25.  On 11 December 2002 the Constitutional Court found that the District Court had violated the applicant’s right under Article 48 § 2 of the Constitution to a hearing without unjustified delay; ordered the District Court to proceed with the matter promptly and awarded the applicant SKK 50,000[2] by way of compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
The Constitutional Court discerned no factual or legal complexity in the subject-matter of the proceedings. No significant delays could be imputed to the applicant.
However, there was nothing to justify the fact that the proceedings were still pending at first instance without a single decision on the merits having been taken and without obtaining the necessary expert evidence after more than 7 years. The District Court’s conduct of the entire proceedings had been marked by inactivity or inefficient activity over a period of almost 5 years (from 1997 to 3 June 2002). The amount of just satisfaction was determined on an equitable basis.